What exists that is not of the physical world yet not supernatural
A series of arguments with T Clark and 180 Proof started me to think on this topic.
The way I see it, and according to my interpretation of their posts, T Clark and friends deny that anything exists that is not material.
180 proof insists that everything real is natural.
I will address 180's stance in a later post.
T Clark said he has nothing more to say to me, because I stated that things that are not material do exist, and not at all supernatural things. I said some things that exist without material body are nevertheless dependent on material things for their existence. T Clark replied he and I have nothing more to say to each other.
I believe T Clarke believes that language has meaning. I also believe that he figures mathematics is a very important tool for human beings to navigate their affairs in this world.
But when I said that the human mind is a non-phyiscal entity that exists with the aid of matter, but is itself not of matter, he balked at me.
Yet, without a mind there is no language, there is no mathematics.
Language and mathematics do NOT exist in the physical world. They are not of matter. Yet if they are tools, then they can't not exist. The nothing, as such, can't be used for anything. Nothing is a lack of things. Without a screw you can't screw a screw into wood. Without mathematics you can't do mathematical calculations and / or solve theorems.
Therefore, QED, the things that are funcitons of the mind are not material and yet they do exist without material presence: such as math and language.
And the mind exists, wihout a material presence, since it is capable of dealing with mathematics and langauge. The mind's presence or existence is according to my belief is dependent on matter, on functions of the matter; but the mind itself is not of matter. If it were, then there would be evidence that it exists; hard, pulpable, tangible, observable, seeable, evidence in the form of a piece of matter. But no such things exists. Therefore, QED, it is a thing without material existence that still exists.
The way I see it, and according to my interpretation of their posts, T Clark and friends deny that anything exists that is not material.
180 proof insists that everything real is natural.
I will address 180's stance in a later post.
T Clark said he has nothing more to say to me, because I stated that things that are not material do exist, and not at all supernatural things. I said some things that exist without material body are nevertheless dependent on material things for their existence. T Clark replied he and I have nothing more to say to each other.
I believe T Clarke believes that language has meaning. I also believe that he figures mathematics is a very important tool for human beings to navigate their affairs in this world.
But when I said that the human mind is a non-phyiscal entity that exists with the aid of matter, but is itself not of matter, he balked at me.
Yet, without a mind there is no language, there is no mathematics.
Language and mathematics do NOT exist in the physical world. They are not of matter. Yet if they are tools, then they can't not exist. The nothing, as such, can't be used for anything. Nothing is a lack of things. Without a screw you can't screw a screw into wood. Without mathematics you can't do mathematical calculations and / or solve theorems.
Therefore, QED, the things that are funcitons of the mind are not material and yet they do exist without material presence: such as math and language.
And the mind exists, wihout a material presence, since it is capable of dealing with mathematics and langauge. The mind's presence or existence is according to my belief is dependent on matter, on functions of the matter; but the mind itself is not of matter. If it were, then there would be evidence that it exists; hard, pulpable, tangible, observable, seeable, evidence in the form of a piece of matter. But no such things exists. Therefore, QED, it is a thing without material existence that still exists.
Comments (83)
I agree that Language (Logic) and Mathematics are meta-physical functions (tools) that are necessary for the existence of the physical world. Some mathematicians have begun to view abstract Mathematics as the logical structure of the physical universe. In that case, math/logic is not in the physical world, it is the physical world. Our brains merely convert sensory digital inputs (information) into imaginary concepts that we accept as accurate representations of the physical world. We translate geometric & logical relationships into topological models of "real" things.
Although those conceptual "things" are merely ideas, for all practical purposes, they are the furniture of the real world. We treat our mental models as-if they are real. Those ideas may-or-may-not exist as physical objects, but they are still within the scope of the space-time natural world. Hence, not "super-natural", but merely "meta-physical"*2. Yes, I know it's a taboo word for Materialists. :smile:
*1. Mathematical universe hypothesis :
That is, the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics (specifically, a mathematical structure). Mathematical existence equals physical existence, and all structures that exist mathematically exist physically as well. Observers, including humans, are "self-aware substructures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis
*2. Meta-physics :
[i]The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled physics - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was later labeled metaphysics - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: Ideal as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal forms (concepts) were prior-to the Real substance (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the formal cause of the thing designed.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
I assume you are talking about our exchanges in the "Does quantum physics say nothing is real?" thread. You have misstated my positions and put words in my mouth. I went back and looked at all our mutual posts in the thread to make sure I didn't misremember. I'll let @180 Proof speak for himself.
That being said, have at it.
Cite the claim/s you are referring to. Thanks.
Clarify what you mean by "a thing ... exists".
[1] We live in an ordered universe that can be understood by humans.
[2] The universe consists entirely of physical substances - matter and energy.
[3] These substances behave in accordance with scientific principles, laws.
[4] Scientific laws are mathematical in nature.
[5] The same scientific laws apply throughout the universe and at all times.
[6] The behaviors of substances are caused.
[7] Substances are indestructible, although they can change to something else.
[8] The universe is continuous. Between any two points there is at least one other point.
T Clark
[9] Space and time are separate and absolute.
[10] Something can not be created from nothing.[/quote]
These reflect my world view almost completely.
I would add 2.1. that entities can be made up based on physical substances, but being entities of... what? emotions, the "I" (eye) feeling, the senses, sensations... these are definitely based on physical substances, but they create motions of physical substances that can't be explained by rules that govern physical substances alone; they can't be explained by the laws of the physical universe. Such movements are a man approaching a woman to make love to her. A dead man will not approach a woman to make lover to her. Or a crab approaching a food item to eat it. A dead crab will not approach the food item. In these instances there is motivation that is not possible to explain by the laws of the physical universe alone, while at the same time the motivations are not supernatural, and they are not supernaturally originated. They don't have substance, but they have a presence. Go figure.
I could not call these points [1] through [10] metaphysics, rather, points of belief.
My points are not good reasons to start a discussion over. That you call them "metaphysics" and I call them "points of belief" is a minor, very minor difference.
2.1. could be discussed or argued, but I won't be so military about it as I was when we talked about "metaphysical statements have no truth value".
--------------------------------------------
I could not call these points [1] through [10] metaphysics, rather, points of belief.
god must be atheist
There's not much else for us to discuss then.
-- T Clark
===========================
It seems to me that I made an error. I somehow imagined, and that's how I remembered, that T Clark opposed my view [2.1.] of entities' existing while not being material, and that's why T Clark said he has nothing to say to me.
This is an error by me, I admit it, and I apologize for it.
However, the claim that is described in [2] is in opposition of my view decribed in [2.1] My mistake is that I misattributed the reason why T Clark has nothing to say to me. I attributed it to the disagreement described in [2] and in [2.1], whereas T Clark's not willing to talk to me is due to my calling the points above not metaphysical but of belief.
Sorry, I made this mistake, and again, I apologize.
Existence is being not nothing.
Quoting 180 Proof
Please give me some time to research the quotes in which you tried to refute my argument that some human-made structures are not natural. It will be hard to show your stance, since your opinions on that thread section were expressed by derisive laughter shown by emojis.
You know what? Instead of my going on a busy-body wild goose chase and show your opinion the way you showed it, I ask you here to say what you consider not natural and what you consider natural that exists in the physical world. Please do not allow me to put words in your mouth; but I remember you asked me to show examples of any human creations that are not made by obeying natural phyisical laws; and I said that there are structures in the univerese that are not freely found in nature. From then on your arguments consisted of derisive laughter expressed by emoji(es), and I responded to it in like.
From there I jumped here, and declared that you denied that any physical creation or unit or change is natural. It may have been an invalid jump, as your point was (from your cryptic claims) I believe that all HUMAN creations were natural; but that does not necessarily mean that all creations are natural. Just because I juxtaposed human creation vs natural creations, you may have other creations in mind that are physical but not natural.
Please enlighten me of your opinion on what is natural, and if in your opinion anything in the physical world can be unnatural.
Thanks.
Clear as mud. :shade:
I don't see why: you claimed I had "insisted" on something show me by citing my own words (with a link to put those words into context).
You make the other person think by implying what your opinion is; then when we get to a conclusion, "yes, this is what 180 Proof's opinion is" you simply deny it, on the grounds that you never said it.
Why do you do this? Many may or may not think it's because you are spineless. I don't think that. I think you are just deathly afraid of being proven wrong.
For instance:
Quoting 180 Proof
What??? Like I said, you are not stupid. But you are reduced to using your brilliant mind now for simple and childish naysaying, instead of providing arguments.
Again, I ask, why do you do this? This is a philosophy website, not junior kindergarten.
I usually confine 'existence' to things that do so independently of the sentience that names them but don't take people to task if they refer to the existence of deadlines or psychoses; it's simply common parlance, imprecise but harmless. It goes unremarked until somebody makes an issue of the existence of time or mathematics or some other attribute of the universe. Okay, they exist the way 'blue' exists in the sky or 'friendliness' in a dog; they're not discreet things, processes or qualities, but complex attributes and processes and phenomena for which we have simple words to express how we apprehend the result.
Language doesn't lie on a table, waiting for somebody to pick it up and start playing it; thus, language has a different kind of existence from that of a trombone. Language 'exists' only as an idea; a convenient, easily recognizable collective label for a very large and complex combination of brain activities; it may be symbolically represented in many forms, but has no independent reality.
"Mind" stands for an even bigger complex of activity: for all of the processing that a brain does. But you can't put it down, leave the room and come back for it later. So it doesn't exist.
Nothing. However, not all things emerging from the physical world are themselves physical. They are all naturally occurring. Meaningful correlations that are drawn between different physical things by a creature capable of doing so are not themselves physical things. They are existentially dependent upon physical things. They consist of some physical things.
A correlation drawn between a specific sort of screech and a specific sort of predator is not physical. The screech is meaningful, and it becomes so by virtue of being/becoming a part of that correlation. When more than one creature draws the same correlation, then we have the basics of being one step closer to language use. Meaningful thought and/or belief is not supernatural. Language use is not supernatural. All language use draws correlations between different things. Drawing correlations between screeches and predators is forming basic belief that the predator is nearby when the screech is heard. If these creatures do it for the reason of sounding an alarm rather than the involuntary fear response at the sight of the predator, then we have a certain case of basic language use. If not, then we still have a basic case of shared meaning. Shared meaning is required for language use. That belief(that a predator is near) is meaningful to creatures drawing the correlations between the screech and the predator.
Meaningful thought and belief are existentially dependent upon the physical. They are neither supernatural nor physical.
So you cannot cite from where you get
Quoting god must be atheist
:ok: No need to take your OP seriously then since you're just making up context-free shit.
Quoting god must be atheist
Youre missing a key option here, which is that Physicalism already presupposes the inseparable contribution of subjectivity in its formulation of the mind-independent physical world without being aware of this.
Ultimately, what we call reality is so deeply suffused with mind- and language-dependent structures that it is altogether impossible to make a neat distinction between those parts of our beliefs that reflect the world in itself and those parts of our beliefs that simply express our conceptual contribution. The very idea that our cognition should be nothing but a re-presentation of something mind-independent consequently has to be abandoned.(Dan Zahavi)
The unquestioned givenness of the objective world that is constitutive of scientific descriptions cannot capture the way in which the given is disclosed by a meaning-giving background. Thus, if anything, it is the transcendental, meaning-giving account that has ontological priority over an objective/causal description.(Matthew Ratcliffe)
Quoting creativesoul
What would a physical thing subsist in , outside of all meaningful correlations? Isnt a physical thing a co-relationship between experiencer and object of experience? What features , properties and attributes do you imagine a physical thing to possess outside of our interaction with it? Arent features, properties and attributes correlational functions?
It is an illusion to think that the notions of object or reality or world have any sense outside of and independently of our conceptual schemes (Putnam 1992, 120). Putnam is not denying that there are external facts; he even thinks that we can say what they are; but as he writes, what we cannot say because it makes no sense is what the facts are independent of all conceptual choices (Putnam 1987, 33). We cannot hold all our current beliefs about the world up against the world and somehow measure the degree of correspondence between the two. It is, in other words, nonsensical to suggest that we should try to peel our perceptions and beliefs off the world, as it were, in order to compare them in some direct way with what they are about (Stroud 2000, 27). This is not to say that our conceptual schemes create the world, but as Putnam writes, they don't just mirror it either(Putnam 1978).
I'm not sure what you're asking here. Could you rephrase?
Not in my view.
Whatever it may consist of. I'm fond of parsing things in terms of their basic elementary constituents.
Not in my view.
I've no use for the notion of "external facts"
I would concur that it is mistaken to think that notions have sense independently of language use. However, I would only remark here that the thing outside in my yard is not my notion/conception of a kukui nut tree. To quite the contrary, it is a kukui nut tree. My notion of a kukui nut tree consists of correlations drawn between the thing named "kukui nut tree" and other things(such as the name). The kukui nut tree does not consist of correlations drawn between it and other things.
Putnam may not be able to, but my twenty seven month old grandaughter could, and did. Someone told her that there was nothing in the fridge for her, and she showed them otherwise by opening the door and pointing out all the things inside.
Talking in terms of 'peeling our perceptions and beliefs off the world' is nonsense. I agree.
This sounds like the age-old debate between Materialism and Idealism. Even Plato and Aristotle were divided on the question of primacy. However, in his Hylomorphism theory, Aristotle seemed to admit that something immaterial (Form ; Substance ; Essence) was prior to, or at least co-existent with, physical Matter. In his "Physics", he mainly described tangible objects in the world, but also referred to logical processes that are invisible-yet-knowable to the rational human mind. Then, in the volume known as "Metaphysics", he turned to discussion of human ideas & theories about the material world. Those mental concepts are literally Ideal, and do not manifest in material form --- except perhaps to those who imagine that they see ghosts.
I suppose that Aristotle was too pragmatic to accept the mystical primacy of Mathematics, accepted as a fundamental belief by Pythagoreans. So he viewed Plato's Idealism as a little too spooky for his taste. But, in his own rational arguments, he was forced to resort to combining physical stuff (hyle ; matter) with mental concepts (morph ; form) in order to explain how the logical patterns by which we know Matter could transform into the ideal forms of mental images.
Modern empirical physicists also tend to imagine the "material" objects they study as aggregates of fundamental "atoms". This despite the fact that Quantum Science has undermined the materialistic beliefs of Classical science. Their supposedly indivisible particles of Hyle have been divided & sub-divided into smaller fragments that are too ethereal (quarks) for our sense-extending tools to resolve. Hence, many if not most Theoretical physicists have decided that the fundamental entities of physical reality are mathematical Fields of inter-relationships (geometry). But, the empiricists still insist on calling the non-dimensional points --- that are geometrically-linked to other mathematically-defined points in otherwise empty space --- "Virtual (almost but not quite real) Particles".
So, it seems that philosophical disputes, about physical vs non-physical entities, boil down to a question of personal taste or belief systems (worldviews). But even "physical" Energy, which is essential to explain any change in material objects, is itself invisible & intangible. Being merely a name for the relationship between Cause & Effect : a process, not at thing. At the bottom line, modern empirical (mechanical) physicists, whose names are not well-known, are often overshadowed by theoretical (mathematical) physicists (Einstein, Tegmark et al). The latter create abstract mathematical models of things unseen, and publicize imaginative metaphors & imagery to explain the puzzling results of atom-smashing experiments and star-smashing astronomical events.
Consequently, it's inevitable that philosophical (metaphysical) belief systems will clash & balk, when translated into "physical evidence" to support their own logical structure. Is it real? Depends on how you define "reality" in words & images. Which came first, the mind-making brain or the logical structure of the universe? :smile:
1.(In your own words) How so?
2 (Again, in your own words) "Materialistic beliefs" such as?
3. As opposed to "nonphysical Energy"?
If so, please cite an example.
4. If philosophy consists in criteria for forming and judging "beliefs" (i.e. epistemology), then philosophy cannot itself be a "belief system", right? (Re: the epistemic regress problem.)
If so, then "belief systems" are not "philosophical (metaphysical)" ... maybe they are religious or political, social or psychological, normative or practical "belief systems" ... and therefore not what's at issue when we "clash & balk" at each other's disparate, seemingly incongruent, mis/interpretations of texts, concepts or phenomena. Then what's at issue? The usual suspects: fallacious arguments, obfuscating / evasive rhetoric, insufficient subject-matter knowledge, unwarranted neologisms, pseudo-science masquerading as speculation, etc. :sparkle: :eyes:
.
The universe, then brains, then grammar-based cognition (i.e mind), then "the logical structure" of any X (e.g. X = "the universe, then brains, then ... etc"). Otherwise, "idealism" (i.e. anti-realism). :yawn:
That is a true statement . . . . within the framework of 180's worldview of Materialism or Physicalism or Realism (or whatever he prefers to call his personal belief system). From that perspective, Reality is what you know via your 5 senses, but it omits what you know via the 6th sense of Reason. Yet, by means of logical reasoning, we infer meanings that are not obvious to the naked eye. For example, my assumption that you are a rational being like me is a belief that is not based on physical evidence, but on abstract forms of behavior.
Hence, my belief about you is debatable, but not provable by empirical methods. The ancients attributed that gift of Reason to an immortal Soul. And much mischief has followed from the unwarranted "immortal" label attached to the combination of Life & Mind, that is referred to as "Spirit" or "Soul". So, a bit of skepticism toward Spiritualism is warranted. But 180, and other Physicalists, go beyond mere Skepticism into the Cynicism of Ideological disputation. FWIW In place of "immortal Soul", I prefer to use "mortal Self" to describe the person as a whole, including body, life & mind. The Self-image is indeed non-physical (i.e. Ideal), but not necessarily immortal.
That's why I typically avoid getting into creed-based disputes with 180proof. On the other hand, he does sometimes challenge my own unorthodox assertions with good skeptical philosophical questions. So, I'll take this opportunity to answer him indirectly in this post. The OP asks "what exists [is real] that is not physical [material]). And I have come to view Life & Mind as immaterial forms of the Logical processes we now know as "Information". But before that term was applied to machine thinking, it was used to describe the intangible contents of the human Mind : i.e. Ideas, Concepts, Memes, etc. We infer those thought-modules from our inter-communication of information, but cannot detect them by physical means.
That's why I have inferred from counter-intuitive Quantum Theory and abstract mathematical definitions of Information, that what we know as physical Energy is ultimately a mathematical relationship (1/0), equivalent to mental Logic. Hence, in agreement with some pioneering physicists (see below), I have come to equate the elements of Soul (life ; mind) with the abstract concept of Causation. I won't go into the details here, but instead -- if you'll pardon my intrusion -- I'll address some of his replies to my comments on this thread, from the perspective of my personal worldview : Enformationism -- the essence of everything, both physical & mental, in this world is a form of Generic Information (confer Plato's LOGOS). To 180, this sounds like the ravings of a New Age nut-case. But it's intended to be merely a merger of cutting-edge physical Science with the ancient meta-physical Philosophy of Plato & Aristotle, among others. It's all mundane ; no need for spooky Mysticism. :smile:
Reply to 180 :
" Quantum Science has undermined the materialistic beliefs of Classical science". Gnomon
1. (In your own words) How so? ___180proof
*** I have explained to 180 the "how so" repeatedly in my own words, and those of credentialed scientists. But, some of the concepts underlying the "how" are not compatible with the Materialistic belief system we now call "Classical Physics". So, they don't make sense from the perspective of a matter-based worldview. For example, Newton proposed an unknown force (gravity = heaviness, a quality) that could bind planets in their orbits. But he could not understand how that action-at-a-distance-across-empty-space could work.
*** Centuries later, Einstein explained that intangible (no ropes) pulling force in terms of counter-intuitive geometry of nothingness (curved vacuum). The medium of that non-physical traction was simply a mathematical relationship between masses of matter. But Mass itself is nothing more than a mathematical description of the immaterial property of Matter known as "Inertia" (resistance to change ; stubborness). The links between puller & pullee are immaterial vectors, that we symbolize with metaphorical numbers & arrows.
*** Although some practicing scientists resist some of the spookier implications of quantum theory, they have been forced to admit that our normal reality is underlain by an invisible domain that has subtle-but-vital bottom-up effects on the human scale. They might also grudgingly concede that the world's foundation of immaterial fields must be ultimately more real than the egocentric imaginary models of reality --- both materialistic & spiritualistic --- that we carry around in our heads. So, since both our macro & quantum world models can be boiled down to mental images, numbers & ideas, the question arises : what is true reality . . . a collection of isolated things, a swarm of mindless atoms, or a story woven of meanings? Personally, I find the idea of a world of ideas to be plausible & meaningful in the context of 21st century science.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page15.html
2 (Again, in your own words) "Materialistic beliefs" such as? ___180
Scientism : excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques
Scientism : Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. ___Google
*** In my own words, Scientism rejects the traditional rational methods of Philosophy, based on the Classical Science belief in the final authority of empirical methods. However, in the words of quantum physicist Werner Heisenberg : "classical physics is just that idealization in which we can speak about parts of the world without any reference to ourselves". In that case, a fundamental belief of Scientism is that the human mind (Ideas) has no control over the physical world. Yet, historically, the power of Intention has transformed the natural world into an artificial habitat designed specifically for the needs of humans. To me, that sounds like mental Causation : from idea to implementation. Yes, matter must be moved in order to cause physical change, but the causal influence can be traced to the flow of mundane Information, not to New Agey mental energy such as Chi.
3. As opposed to "nonphysical Energy"? If so, please cite an example.
***The intuition of a "nonphysical" form of energy (Chi, Prana, Elan Vital) has been proposed by sages & philosophers over the ages to explain the existence of Life & Mind. But I prefer a modern term derived from Information Theory :EnFormAction. That made-up word refers to both physical & metaphysical forces in the world. It's based on the 21st century understanding that Energy & Matter are physical forms of Generic Information (the power to cause change in form). It's what Aristotle called "Potential" to explain the contingent existence of "Actual" things.
***An example of non-physical energy is human Intention. It's how humans fly to the moon. Intentional aims are directed toward a future state that does not yet exist. But, by applying that vector to matter (rockets) & energy (fuel), humans have collectively learned to fly like birds, and even to explore the moon. Without Intention, Nature would never put humans on an airless low-gravity satellite.
*** But, what is Energy or Force anyway? For scientific purposes, it is a general property (Causation) of the universe as a system, which causes changes in material substances. Some religions also view Spiritual Energy (Life Force or Soul) as a universal property, that manifests in changes not only to physical bodies, but also in non-physical minds. So which is it? Sadly, these are not physical, but metaphysical queries. Hence, any answers we propose can never be proven true or false by means of empirical evidence. In the Quora quotes below, Neuroscientist Rosseinsky, indicates that we can construct logical explanations, given specific premises, for both possibilities, but we can't prove that one is a fact and the other a fantasy. Each may be valid within its own purview. That's why I prefer to make a key distinction between mundane Reality and sublime Ideality.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page26.html
" ... philosophical (metaphysical) belief systems ..." ___180
4. If philosophy consists in criteria for forming and judging "beliefs" (i.e. epistemology), then philosophy cannot itself be a "belief system", right? (Re: the epistemic regress problem.)
*** Of course, Philosophy per se is not a particular belief system, but an evaluation of belief systems. And a dominant belief today, among scientists, is the primacy of Matter : i.e. Materialism or Physicalism or Scientism. [Note : the -ism ending indicates a belief system, worldview, or philosophy] But Philosophy has always tried to understand all features of the real world, including those that cannot be attributed to inert Matter, or even to the invisible forces that act upon matter. Two of those mysterious properties of the world are Life and Mind. These are not material objects subject to empirical scrutiny, but processes that can only be analyzed by Reason. So, we are forced to rely on non-empirical Logic (including Math) to show us how such "meta-physical" properties could arise in a world of physical actions & reactions.
*** Today, we use the term "Energy" to describe all physical changes in the world. Presumably, in the Planck-scale Big Bang singularity, there was nothing but potential power to cause change. And the first form-change was from formless Cosmic Potential into ghostly free-floating "sub-particles" (quarks ; gluons) of potential matter called "plasma". Over time, that amorphous gaseous cloud was transformed into the fundamental particles that we know today as solid matter. This story is not based on direct evidence, but of imagination, to explain how stars, planets, and people began from a dimensionless point in non-space. Some call the Big Bang a "modern creation myth". And some form of that myth is fundamental to the belief system we call Scientism, which adapts Classical Materialism to the new facts of Quantum Physics . But it still excludes the intentional Observer from its calculations.
*** Not all scientists subscribe to the modern Matter myth. In fact, some of the pioneers of Quantum Theory were forced to consider other paradigms to make sense of the Matter/Mind duality proposed by scientist/philospher Descartes. For example, the application of Information Theory to Quantum Theory has started a movement toward another "paradigm shift" in scientific belief systems. This is currently an adjustment to philosophical worldviews, but it may eventually result in a scientific paradigm shift equal to that of Quantum Physics.
Form is Information :
"Later, in the philosophy of Aristotle, matter was thought of in the relation between form and matter. All that we perceive in the world of phenomena is formed matter. Matter is in itself not a reality, but only a possibility, a "[i]potentia" ; it exists only by means of form. In the natural process the "essence", as Aristotle calls it, passes over from mere possibility through form into actuality."[/i]
___Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy
Note -- what Aristotle called "form" we can today equate with the causal power of Information, as discovered by Claude Shannon, and elaborated by later physicists.
The Matter Myth : Dramatic Discoveries that Challenge Our Understanding of Physical Reality
In this sweeping survey, acclaimed science writers Paul Davies and John Gribbin provide a complete overview of advances in the study of physics that have revolutionized modern science. From the weird world of quarks and the theory of relativity to the latest ideas about the birth of the cosmos, the authors find evidence for a massive paradigm shift.
https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Myth-Discoveries-Challenge-Understanding/dp/0743290917
PLASMA : Latin for FORM
Where does math come from? Where does language come from? They come from people, who are made of matter, realized in brains, which are modifications of matter.
But if this image of matter is too restrictive, because in a sense it is, not everything in the universe is matter - dark energy, light, etc, are physical.
As Joseph Priestley says:
"It is said that we can have no conception how sensation or thought can arise from matter, they being things so very different from it, and bearing no sort of resemblance to anything like figure or motion; which is all that can result from any modification of matter, or any operation upon it. this is an argument which derives all its force from our ignorance. Different as are the properties of sensation and thought, from such as are usually ascribed to matter, they may, nevertheless, inhere in the same substance, unless we can shew them to be absolutely incompatible with one another."
And also this quote, even more forcefully stated, from Schopenhauer:
"The tendency to gravity in the stone is precisely as inexplicable as is thinking in the human brain, and so on this score, we could also infer a spirit in the stone. Therefore to these disputants [between 'spiritualists' and 'materialists'] I would say: you think you know a dead matter, that is, one that is completely passive and devoid of properties, because you imagine you really understand everything that you are able to reduce to mechanical effect. But you are unable to reduce them If matter can fall to earth without you knowing why, so can it also think without you knowing why If your dead and purely passive matter can as heaviness gravitate, or as electricity attract, repel, and emit spark, so too as brain pulp can it think."
Emphasis mine.
I think these are very solid arguments. We do not know how it is possible that matter (or physical stuff) can think, but it clearly does, as we see in ourselves.
Quoting Gnomon
Gnomon, sir, I prefer to categorize your "ravings" :sparkle: more precisely, as I've said previously, as pseudo-science masquerading as metaphysical speculation that's rationalized with soapbox sophistry. :eyes:
Thanks for proving my point about the persistent incoherence of your reasoning, Gnomon, with such a clear, telling example. :lol: :up:
Well then, unlike gmba, you're capable of using the TPF search function and citing my own words from our many exchanges to corrobrate your claim that what gmba says about my stated position on what is "real" or "natural" is "a true statement", right? :chin:
I only ask, Gnomon, because you promiscously assert things without valid arguments or sufficient evidence about philosophical or scientific topics you clearly do not understand. :sweat:
And while you seem in the mood to address my questions about your "New Age ravings", how about showing these old chestnuts some of that "Enformationism" :kiss:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/746676
Quoting Bylaw
I think the best answer I can provide to your quiestion, Bylaw, is point [2] in the above credo.
But it's not a perfect answer. Because the universa also contains empty space. And it contains functionalities that are not matter, yet they exist.
How would you define physical/material?
Quoting god must be atheist
Recently, I have been exploring the oft-buried & resurrected zombie notion that "empty space" is full of something that has physical effects, but is not physical itself : Quintessence or Aether. The new understanding is that "empty space" is not a cloud of tiny particles, but something more like a Mathematical Field of Potential Energy. We detect & measure invisible intangible Energy, by what it does (function), not by what it is (physical material). And one of its functions is to create physical Matter by means of mathematical Mass. Is that something like what you had in mind in the OP? :smile:
PS__Like "Metaphysics", "Aether" can be a trigger-word for Classical-Physics-Materialists to denounce as "Pseudoscience". Yet, in the last century, the logical necessity for something like Aether has continued to pop-up among physicists uncomfortable with the compromises embedded in the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation, due to the unavoidable statistical uncertainties (probabilities) of quantum experiments. The Quora opinion linked below is not necessarily authoritative, but it provides food for thought : about non-physical (essential) existence.
Energy :
"Energy is defined as the ability to do work, which is the ability to exert a force causing displacement of an object. Despite this confusing definition, its meaning is very simple: energy is just the force that causes things to move. Energy is divided into two types: potential and kinetic." https://ingeniumcanada.org/scitech/education/tell-me-about/physics-of-energy
Note -- Potential Energy is by definition, not actual. And Kinetic Energy is merely the after-effect of Energy Causation.
Does Aether Exist? :
"Under a surface of vociferous denying and pointing to flawed experiments there is a general acceptance even among modern physicists and Nobel Laureates that there is a physical strata that plays fundamentally the role of an Aether, although the term is so laden with philosophical prejudices that no one really dares to commit to the name Aether and all sorts of alternative and rather silly sounding denotations are invented: quantum foam, quantum fluid for instance or this field or that field, where nobody ever can point out what kind of physical species a field IS. There are at best vague ideas what a field DOES: "
https://www.quora.com/Does-Aether-exist-according-to-modern-physics
Note -- It seems that, by labeling the mysterious source of "virtual" particles as a visualizable Cartesian "Field", quantum physics were attempting to avoid the prejudices attached to mystical ancient "Aether" : the ethereal atmosphere of the Olympian gods
Aether proven not to exist? :
Michelsen-Morley: the erroneous notion of a monolithic ether filling space through which all moving bodies must travel, led to the ill fated M&M experiment which inevitably yielded a null-result: nothing moves through the Aether, the Aether is not a substance filling an autonomous space, but space IS itself an Aether modality as we will see.
https://www.quora.com/Does-Aether-exist-according-to-modern-physics
Note -- The M-M experiment was assuming that Aether was a physical substance in space. But some new theories propose that non-physical Aether is SpaceTime : a mathematical mental model, not a physical object.
Quoting Gnomon
:lol: Woo-wooooosy.
So I suppose the MichelsonMorley experiment doesn't disprove the existence of "aether" after all, huh? :smirk:
'Atoms swirling and swerving in the void' still works philosophically. Consider these refinements as "physical/material" correlates: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/532028
I am not sure how this relates to what I wrote. Or perhaps better put - I haven't made an argument based on atoms swirling and swerving in the void or focusing on the void, so I am not quite sure what you are saying here. (and oddly, despite your quoting me, I got no notice that you had. I saw it by chance.)
Good point. Well put. The only weaknesses of this definition are its use of undefinable elements, and its obvious subjectivity.
I think we can agree that we are humans and real to us is what is real to us. Yes, it's not only circular, but more so: it's a point-definition, and if we include the need for verification, then we really throw ourselves into the outer space of philosophical loo-loo land.
We are scraping the outer boundary of philosophy, the frontier where no man has gone before.
Any way you define reality, there are physical existances, I am sure, and things that are born of physical existencies. Some people deny the existence, not only the realness, of non-physical existencies. That is where my battle lies, not in defintions... defining life, god, love, reality and meaning I leave to the philosopers.
That's why I wanted to avoid the whole issue. Reality can be decided over (i.e. what we consider reality) but it can't be verified.
For instance, scientists can't prove there is matter; they deal with it, they find its properties, but they can't verify matter.
Some users stopped talking to me, because I said matter is a matter of belief. (Or at least this is my recollection why they categorically said they won't talk to me.) I won't quote names, because my rote memory is shot; I don't know how to quote who said what. |(I know the mechanism, but it's too much work for too little return in this instance.) This is completely a side issue, but when it comes to reality, I adamantly support the view that reality is not proven, it is a matter of belief. I admit it COULD be the real thing, but there is no way we, humans, can prove it and/or verify its existence.
This all goes back to Hume, of course, the Humest Human.
I mean, I don't disagree with you. But I don't think this line of argument makes a case for calling everything in reality physical or material. That was my focus.
When I say verify, I mean things like. When I add salt to water it leads to a solution that gets saturated until each liter has X amount of salt at 65 degrees Cent. So, 10 labs around the world do this and find this is the case. Or I do some experiments on the material in pig bones and state that there is calcium in there. Other people in other labs verify this (or find counterevidence or fail to verify.
I'm happy to question if we are finding out about ultimate reality or ding an sich.
But for me I have little problem using this idea of verification. But I am not attached to it and it seems like for you this means something much stronger than what it means to me. We have called X salt and Y water and so on. And when I do process C this happens. Hey can you verify this in your lab, thanks.
What I like about the term is it is process focused and pragmatic. Rather than making some claim that everything is physical so we know that only physical things will be found. Quoting god must be atheistI agree in a couple of different ways with you.
I think it's a love axiom to work with, but I think it is silly to continue using it as a universal ontological claim. The meaning has changed too much over time to take it seriously.
Quoting god must be atheist
The OP questions our Ontological definition of Nature & Being : Physical (P) vs Non-physical (non-P) existence. That Either/Or distinction has boiled down to defining "substance" and "entity". So, I'll ask a few quibbling questions for clarification. This is not criticism, just a few pertinent open questions to think about.
[1] asserts an ordered universe, and [3] seems to attribute that logical organization to "principles & laws". Which category would you place those orderly forces into : P or non-P? If physical "Laws" (or regulations) are detectable only by rational minds, not by empirical methods, what is their Substance : Matter or Math or Mind or Aristotelian Essence, or Other?
Into which category would you place "Mathematics" [4] : P or non-P? If Math is a physical substance, is it Matter or Energy or Mind or Other? If neither Matter nor Energy, how can Math exist according to [2]? Supernatural existence has already been ruled-out by the topical question. So, if Math is non-P, in what sense is it Natural?
[9] Space & Time, as conventional concepts had always been imagined as separate functions of Nature (Reality), but fundamental & absolute. Yet, for theoretical graphical purposes, Einstein combined the notions of spatial Extension & temporal Duration into a single mathematical function : "Space-Time" or "Block-Time". Although still fundamental or essential, in what sense do Space & Time exist : P or non-P, or Other?
Typically, in philosophical dialog, both Ps & non-Ps are considered to be Entities, but in what sense : physical substance or metaphysical essence? Is "Being" defined exclusively, as Physical (matter & energy) and "Non-Being" as non-physical, or mutually as different modes of Being? If Non-physical entities are non-being, why should physicists or philosophers concern themselves with such non-existent non-entities? :smile:
Entity : a thing with distinct and independent existence.
But is the distinction mental or physical? Is the independence local or universal?
What is a substance according to Aristotle?
Aristotle defines substance as ultimate reality, in that substance does not belong to any other category of being, and in that substance is the category of being on which every other category of being is based. Aristotle also describes substance as an underlying reality, or as the substratum of all existing things.
https://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/firstphilosophy.html
Hmm. These questions keep getting asked and 'answered' on this forum.
My own take is maths is an abstraction, a product of human minds. Minds appear to be physical things in as much as we have no evidence of a mind without a physical body. But there is no firm answer available to all this yet, right? (Let's avoid qualia too, while we are at it.) And intellects far more powerful than ours have been no closer to definitively answering this question, so perhaps it can be bracketed and set aside until there's a breakthrough. A few arseholes on the internet are not going to resolve this and win the Nobel Prize.
Do we have any good evidence to decide that the foundations of logic are transcendent? Can we demonstrate that there is even such a thing as non-natural/super natural? What would the properties of non-natural be, I wonder? While we may speculate about the nature of maths or logic and call them spooky because they are useful but not corporeal, it seems fairly likely they only exist if bodies with minds can conceptualize them. There's no real need for Platonism or woo just yet, is there?
I wonder if maths, time and space and all those tricky matters are just part of a generalized neurocognitive system that allows us to understand the world and they have no reality outside of experience.
Thanks for asking those questions.
I copied the list from the post of a fellow user. I shan't name the user, in order to avoid a making a mistake for which I'm accountable.
I QUESTIONED the list. I said there are thing outside the assertions of those items. I left the list as is, assuming that that is the proposition that only material things exist. The last point says that. Somehow you cut off the last two or three points, which is unfortunate, as they were essential elements of the weltanschauung of the poster whose post-list i questioned.
This is what I am driving at, too, except I recognize their existence as such. You talk of them as functions of a system; I agree that they depend on their existence on the system, but once created, they are body-less existencies.
This is only a viewpoint difference; an interpretation, between "existence without body" and "function of system". I am beginning to think that it does not really matter what you call it, but I still believe that they do exist; not as part of the system, but as function of the system, therefore they are SEPARATE from the system. Much like travelling speed of a car is dependent on the car's system, but the speed itself is separate from the system, and is in effect a measurable non-physically existent quality.
Even the hard core materialist needs things like language and math. He or she might simply brush away the question with the standard answer that it all happens in the brain.
In a way, the problem is that existence and something being true is synonymous. From that we get confused.
I agree with you, but I lost you at this part.
I went to the movies last night. True.
What exists here that "true" refers to? It's an assertion that "true" validates. The assertion exists? in a way yes, but if I say "i went to the beach yesterday" then it would be false and yet "false" also validates that the assertion happened, except it disagrees with it.
Physical existence is quite clear: either something is made of atoms exists or it doesn't. Hence we can say that an animal we define or have named as being a horse exists ("horses exist" is a true statement) whereas an animal named as an unicorn doesn't (hence "Unicorns exist" is false). Here existence refers to physical existence.
Yet when we don't ask about physical objects, but refer to other questions, the "existence" isn't so straightforward: is there a very popular called mythic imaginary creature called an unicorn? Are there pictures, books or songs about unicorns? Of course. It's our questions that define the truth or falsity of the answers.
We seem to be using terms "Math", "Mind", and "Physical" in different senses. Equating the Chalice with the Wine. So, let's get more definitive.
Of course, the formalisms that we collectively call "Mathematics"*1 are mental constructs produced by many human minds over multiple lifetimes, yet they persist (exist) in some sense. To be clear, these non-scientific philosophical questions, about Physical vs Non-Physical existence, are referring to invisible & intangible features of the world, such as are studied by mathematicians : "quality, structure, space, and change". So, let's rephrase the question : are quality, structure, space, and change P or non-P? What is your take on the physicality of those features of Nature? Note : I'm not referring to the container, but to its contents -- not to a machine, but to its functions.
Again, the word "Mind"*2 is typically intended to distinguish the complex lump of tissue that controls the neural systems of the body from its functions or faculties : thought, imagination, memory, will, and sensation. Now, what is your take on the physicality of those natural phenomena?
The OP is making a distinction between "Physical"*3 and "Non-Physical". So, lets be more specific about the options here. Apparently, the wording of the question was trying to avoid using baggage-laden idioms, such as "Metaphysical" or "Spiritual". So, lets substitute some neutral terminology like "Mental" or "Abstract"*4.
With these distinctions in mind, let's reconsider the OP question : "What exists that is not of the physical world, but is not supernatural?" Are "Qualities" & "Memories" physical or supernatural objects consisting of matter, or merely abstract concepts consisting of immaterial logical structures (functional interrelationships)? Can you empirically study Ideas, Feelings, & Concepts by dissecting the physical body/brain? Or must you study them rationally, by examining their logical structure and their inferred relationships to concrete objects? :smile:
*1. Mathematics is the science and study of quality, structure, space, and change. Mathematicians seek out patterns, formulate new conjectures, and establish truth by rigorous deduction from appropriately chosen axioms and definitions.
https://www.tntech.edu/cas/math/what-is-mathematics.php
*2. The mind is the set of faculties responsible for all mental phenomena. Often the term is also identified with the phenomena themselves. These faculties include thought, imagination, memory, will, and sensation. ___Wikipedia
*3, Physical :
[i]A. of or relating to material things
B. relating to the body as opposed to the mind.[/i]
*4. Abstract : existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
I'm still stuck at "Existence and something being true is synonymous". Wouldn't it be the "something being" synonymous with existence? And "true" is interchangeable with any other adjective.
Yep, I may confuse you. Sorry. :yikes:
In mathematics you start with logical premises, and then get that system something is wrong of false in that system starting from the premises. (Hence if 0=1, then anything goes.) I forget what philosophical school of mathematics that is, but it basically just looks if the system is logical by it's own rules. Of course mathematics itself is under scrutiny here.
(Not my best day I assume)
I think we're just repeating ourselves and playing with language. And as far as physics and neuroscience goes, we are both out of our depth. And I already said this:
Quoting Tom Storm
Also this:
Quoting Tom Storm
How would we be able to answer these questions? We can't really proceed until there are better answers as far as I can tell.
Quoting Gnomon
As I said, we don't yet have a definitive explanation of consciousness. But I suspect neuroscience will get there. Until there is a better model, I am comfortable with the notion that mind (metacognition) is the product of brains. But putative answers to this matter will depend upon what foundational metaphysics one adopts. If you're an idealist, say, all this is irrelevant.
Quoting Gnomon
My understanding is neuroscience is close to being able to do so using equipment, not dissection. But even physical things cannot always be measured or be the subject of empirical inquiry. How would we use empirical tools to discover what I ate for lunch on March 4, 1991? Is my lunch to be understood in non-physical terms?
This is merely a typical philosophical failure to adequately define our terms & categories. We talk past each other, not because as laymen we are out of our depth, but because one of us is discussing empirical "Physics and Neuroscience" and the other is discussing theoretical Philosophy. Fortunately, it's not all Greek to me, or to you, I assume.
As I noted before, concepts such as "quality, structure, space, and change" are not physical bodies, hence not subject to empirical dissection. Likewise the "function" of a thing is not a physical object, but a rational inference from observing the states & actions of the thing. So, equating the Mind (function) with the Brain (object) confuses physical properties (wet, warm, gelatinous) with mental functions (ideas, thoughts, feelings). Biologists & Neuroscientists study Brains, while Philosophers study Minds.
Yet, long before the knowing disciplines diverged -- partly due to technological tools for extending the human senses -- Aristotle wrote an encyclopedia of current knowledge of his era (iron & steel were high-tech). And for some reason, he saw fit to divide the work into volume 1 Physics and volume 2 Philosophy, later labeled Meta-Physics. The first volume described observations of natural objects and physical actions : Elements ; Motion. Then, in the second volume, he discussed philosophical cultural principles & theories that were intended to explain what we observed.
Ironically, since the 1700s, those philosophical topics have been branded taboo, and relegated to the sophistry of Theologians. So, what can laymen & non-scientists legitimately discuss on a philosophy forum? Are we limited to the language of Matter & Energy? Should we restrict our language to Physical "principles of classification"? Must we refrain from using Aristotle's language of "substance, quality, quantity, and relation", because such words can be interpreted theologically? If so, why not change the name of this forum to The Physics and Neuroscience Forum? :smile:
Physics vs Philosophy :
"many bitter scientific controversies are actually disputes about the selection of principles of classification or frameworks . . . .There simply is no science practiced independently of philosophy . . . . scientists should not pretend that empirical science is value free . . ."
___Max Planck, The Philosophy of Physics
Language of Physicists :
[i]"it is a language that produces pictures in our mind, but together with them the notion that the pictures have only a vague connection with reality, that they represent only a tendency toward reality"
"Actually the position of classical physics is that of dogmatic realism"
"The modern interpretation of atomic events has very little resemblance to genuine materialistic philosophy"
"the nineteenth century developed an extremely rigid frame for natural science but also the general outlook of great masses of people. This frame was supported by the fundamental concepts of classical physics, space, time, matter and causality. . . . Matter was the primary reality."
"an open hostility of science toward religion developed . . . . Confidence in the scientific method and in rational thinking replaced all other safeguards of the human mind. . . . . modern {quantum} physics . . . . finally resulted in the dissolution of the rigid frame"[/i]
___Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy
:up:
:up: :up:
Well their is duality here is there not? Matter and energy are the same but separated by the quality of mass. Energy and matter both have mass; a hot box of matter has more mass than a cold box of the same amount of matter (because of the energy in the box system/heat).
The difference between matter and energy then is space-time (C) energy travels at the speed of light (timeless and distanceless but a potent cause of change) - it is not physical but has mass - the connection between it and matter, while matter does not travel at the speed of light (has duration/experiences time and occupies distance/space) - it is physical and is the subject of change (is less potent) and again has mass, but obeys its more potent counterpart (energy).
They are equivalent in the sense that they can be converted between one another (mass), but they are qualitatively different: matter is physical and changes while energy is non physical and causes change.
They are the two opposite ends of a spectrum separated by speed (distance/time) squared, or "momentum" ( velocity - "speed in space" and mass).
As Einstein proposed with his equation E=mc2.
The behaviour of energy is to "cause" not be "caused", that's the perogative of matter (physical objects).
Quoting god must be atheist
They are separate and absolute from the relativity (perspective) of matter/physical things/objects.
To energy on the other hand time and space are the same thing. Pure energy would "experience" no time and no distance - as it is pure change/ability to do work/pure potential - everything occurs simultaneously for energy, as a singularity, in a single instant. But as energy condenses into matter, time and space stretch out relative to this process.
Energy converting into matter is decceleration - conversion of potential to change into something changeable (rate - and thus the beginning of time and space - the only medium in which rate (change) can occur.
How did you arrive at that novel conclusion? I have entertained (inferred from E=MC^2) the above-my-paygrade-notion that Matter is essentially slowed-down (decelerated) Light energy. For example, at lightspeed a photon is massless, but as it slows down to matterspeed, it transforms into mathematical Mass, which we measure in terms of physical Matter. I have found a few statements by scientists that could be interpreted as pointing in that direction, but nothing definitive.
Regarding the "beginning of time & space", what could cause presumably continuous (wavey) Pure Energy to coalesce into quantized (particular) photons (change ; time) and thence into matter (malleable ; space)? Can pure energy interact with itself? These are just rhetorical questions. :smile:
:lol:
Quoting god must be atheist
Well the photon is "matterless" yes (not physical/solid/has no dimension) but not massless. Matter and mass are not the same thing: Matter is the solidly of an object that we can see and measure the weight of in a given gravity. Mass on the other hand is the sum of both the matter (solid part) and energy (kinetic part/vibrations) of an object and doesn't depend on gravity.
Proof of this concept: a fully charged torch verses an uncharged torch. The mass (energy and matter) of a torch with a full battery is greater than the mass (energy and matter) of one where the batter is depleted. When you turn on a torch the chemical energy stored in the battery is converted into light energy that quickly bullets off out of the system taking its mass with it.
If a photon was massless how could it impart its mass to matter when it decelerates? Where other than energy would this mass come from otherwise? The key is understanding that the mass of a photon exists as "potential mass" just as a stretched spring represents "potential kinetic energy" which is converted to actual kinetic energy when it is released (accelerates). Which doesn't mean the mass doesn't exist (massless) it just means it cannot be measured at the speed of light because of what's simultaneously occurring to time and space at such a speed.
Quoting Gnomon
That's a good question.
Energy Travelling at the speed of light cannot interact with itself. At the speed of light there is no change "experienced" only potential for change. For energy to interact with itself at the speed of light (do work/influence itself/generate information, that information would have to somehow travel faster than the speed limit - have greater momentum which isn't possible).
Because time dilates infinitely and space contracts infinitely at the speed of light there's no space-time in which anything can change anyways - a singularity.
As for why, when and how energy deccelerates and precipitates matter in a slower, time and space influenced medium (no longer potential but actual change) I'm not entirely sure if I'm honest.
Perhaps some fundamental law based on probability and possible states of being that forces energy to decelerate (change).
A photon is said to be "massless"*1 when it is moving at lightspeed (its definitive state). In that case, it is essentially Pure Energy, undiluted by Matter (pace 180wooboo)*2. But when a photon slows down to a fraction of lightspeed, some of that Potential Energy is converted into Mass, which is a mathematical expression of its potential to be measured in terms of Matter. The "rest mass"*3 of a photon is only a hypothetical concept*4, since in practice a resting ("matterspeed") photon is no longer a photon (potential), but a particle of some material (actual).
At lightspeed, all of the photon's Energy is in the form of Momentum, which is the potential to transfer energy to another particle upon interaction. An interaction event would tend to slow-down the photon by absorbing some of its momentum energy. But I'm not sure what would cause a photon to slow-down without interacting with another massive/momentum particle. So, I was hoping you could shed some light on that aspect of the Energy/Momentum/Mass/Matter equation. Momentum & Mass are mathematical abstractions, and their only measurable properties are what we call Velocity & Matter.
When you said : "Energy converting into matter is decceleration - conversion of potential to change into something changeable." I responded with : "at lightspeed a photon is massless, but as it slows down to matterspeed, it transforms into mathematical Mass, which we measure in terms of physical Matter." Put those notions together, and you get Aristotle's categories of Potential (momentum) and Actual (matter). Thus, explaining Einstein's equation of Energy with Mass times the speed of light squared (C^2). Do you agree that we (you, me, Albert) are saying the same thing in different words? :smile:
*1. A photon is massless, has no electric charge, and is a stable particle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
Note -- existentially stable, but not static (stationary).
*2. Pure energy is any field energy, like potential energy, any kinetic energy, like a fast moving particle, but no mass energy of stable or nearly stable massive particles which would require a process to turn into work.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15122/what-is-pure-energy
*3. Photons are traditionally said to be massless. [i]This is a figure of speech that physicists use to describe something about how a photon's particle-like properties are described by the language of special relativity. . . .
In classical electromagnetic theory, light turns out to have energy E and momentum p, and these happen to be related by E = pc. Quantum mechanics introduces the idea that light can be viewed as a collection of "particles": photons. Even though these photons cannot be brought to rest, and so the idea of rest mass doesn't really apply to them,[/i]
https://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
*4. According to electromagnetic theory, the rest mass of photon in free space is zero and also photon has non-zero rest mass, as well as wavelength-dependent. The very recent experiment revealed its non-zero value as 10 - 54 kg
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211379719330943
Any use of the terms "Metaphysics" & "Beliefs" will terminate a dialog with several posters on TPF. That reaction is probably due to previous encounters with philosophically-frustrating dogmatic religious positions based on ancient Theology. However, personally, I find the notion of Meta-physics (non-physical) meaningful as a complementary perspective to Physics. Aristotle divided his encyclopedia on Nature (phusis) into two different categories of human understanding : 1> as known by the senses (physics) and 2> as known via reasoning (metaphysics). But, lingering prejudice against centuries of dominant Catholic dogma is strong on this forum . . . and with good reason. However, that rejection sometimes throws-out a beautiful baby with the nasty bathwater, and tars Philosophy with the brush of Religion, and identifies cutting-edge Science with New Age mumbo-jumbo. Ironically, over the last century, modern (post-quantum) physics has been rubbing our noses in the malodorous margins where Atomism (Materialism) dissolves into Fieldism (Mathematicalism).
Undaunted by the pitchforks & torches of anti-meta-physics witch-hunters, I am philosophically motivated to continue investigating the mysterious margins of post-quantum science. And one spooky notion that just won't die, is the ancient concept of ephemeral Aether, permeating reality with an invisible intangible substance. Yet, that's another taboo term that will elicit boos & hisses from those who are, like Einstein, uncomfortable with the idea of a chancy world where "God plays dice".
In addition to the Aether-supporting quotes from scientists in my previous posts, I realized belatedly that I had read a book about 10 years ago, that may have put some subconscious positive spin on the concept of Space-Time interpreted as Aether. The book was The Lightness of Being, Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces, by nobel physicist Frank Wilczek. From the Introduction :"Transcending older ideas about matter and space, he explains a remarkable new discovery : Matter is built from almost weightless units, and pure energy is the ultimate source of mass. . . . . Space is no mere container, empty and passive. It is a dynamic Grid --- a modern ether. The Grid*1 is more fundamental than any 'fundamental particles' . . ."
Inspired by that new-old notion of Reality, I will try to present additional scientific evidence and arguments to support the understanding that the physical material world of the senses, is underlain by a metaphysical mathematical realm of Potential that reveals itself only to human Reason. Of course, some will interpret such outlandish notions as support for ghosts & spirits. But disillusioned Wilczek had forsaken his Catholic upbringing, and concluded : "I came to think that if God exists, He (or She, or They or It) did a much more impressive job revealing Himself in the world than in the old books . . ." And that is also the position from which I approach the ongoing revelations of sub-quantum Physics. The resurrected Aether concept is still in the early stages of zombiehood, so there is no final authoritative consensus to ground your own beliefs. It's just something new & exciting ("field excitations") to challenge your current settled worldview. :smile:
*1. The Grid is Wilczek's term for Maxwell's continuous (non-particular) electromagnetic fields.
Yes. But that ancient dichotomy won't fly in the modern world. "Physical" is merely what we know about Nature via the mammalian senses. And, "Super-natural"*1 implies some form of extra-sensory perception (ESP), and an invisible realm above or behind mundane Reality*2. Which implies that ESP can perceive things & actions that are beyond the reach of mundane Science --- which ultimately depends on artificial (technological) extensions of the 5 physical senses.
In that case, the door is opened to charlatans (seers), who claim to possess ESP. So, those of us, who are not blessed with "second sight" must accept or reject the revelations of the Seers on faith or doubt. Yet, modern pragmatic, results-oriented, Science has out-shone the empty claims of the psychics -- in a secular sense -- with hard physical evidence. For example, our cell-phone crystal balls allow those of us without super-natural powers to see & control events on the other side of the world. Hence techno-magic makes blind-faith unnecessary.
That's why I prefer to use the term "Meta-physics" to mean the Complement of Physics. Unfortunately, that term is still associated with "supernatural", and is taken to be the Negation of Physics. So, I can't take advantage of its Complementary*3 implications, for fear of being misunderstood, due to its prejudicial baggage. I've tried a variety of alternatives, and "Non-Physical" seems to be the least offensive, but also least evocative of a complementary relationship.
What we know via the sixth sense of Reason (knowledge ; information ; meaning) is indeed invisible & intangible & non-physical (immaterial ; mental). But, since those matterless patterns of meaning (relationships) are found within the scope of ordinary reality, they are not Super-Natural. They are merely Mental or Imaginary or Conceptual : ideas about things, but not things themselves. Our mental models of reality are "not of the physical world", but exist (ideally) within the Natural world.
As far as we know, the ability to Reason (to infer what is not obvious to the senses) is a product of cause & effect Evolution. But it is not a physical effect, like position or shape change. The sense of Reason is a non-physical effect, like viral memes*4. It's another complementary relationship : Natural (physical) & Cultural (meta-physical). Together, they form our human understanding (model) of Reality, as a whole system. :smile:
*1. Supernatural : (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. ___Google
*2. Ironically, modern science has revealed a mysterious invisible sub-atomic domain right under our noses. So, the layman on the street could be forgiven for equating that sub-natural foundation of reality with the traditional super-natural heavenly realm. Are quarks any more physical than angels? As a non-scientist, she would have to take the existence of such entities on faith in those who infer their existence from immaterial (non-physical) mathematical evidence.
*3. Complementary : interdependent ; correlative ; Yin-Yang ; BothAnd
*4. Meme : A meme is an idea, behavior, or style that spreads by means of imitation from person to person within a culture and often carries symbolic meaning representing a particular phenomenon or theme. ___Wikipedia
Is "Narnia" the negation of Earth? Are "dancing angels" the negation of pinheads? Or hallucinations the negations of facts?
In the OP's poll, I selected the third oprion because, in part ...
So, in Western philosophy, does metaphysics concern (the) "super-natural"? No not 'nature beyond nature' (infinite regress, etc) but instead something like 'the common denominator of every constituent of nature as a whole' or 'what within nature makes nature whole' (re: ).
Anyway, I recommend Spinoza over Aristotle (and, whenever possible, avoid Meta-Physics For Dummies :sweat:).
Quoting god must be atheist
Hey, I wanted to ask if you could explain in which way the speed is separate from the system?
typically reads "supernatural" or "superstitious" whenever I use the term "metaphysical" in a non-traditional sense. Ironically his own definition (above) of "non-physical" is closer to my intention : "Physical is synonymous with natural (and nonphysical with formal (e.g. mathematics, logic, etc.))" Indeed, Aristotle, the prime definer & categorizer of philosophical concepts, divided his tome, On Nature, into two different, but complementary categories : a> particular Physical things (Reality) & b> general Non-Physical theories about things (Ideality). The latter was later dubbed "metaphysics". Perhaps in order to distinguish between objective Physical (material ; matter) and subjective Formal (mental ; information) classifications, while maintaining the complementary notion that both are integral aspects of Natural reality on Earth, if not yet on Mars.
Today, in hindsight, we might label those parallel categories as "Nature"*1 (material things and physical dynamics) & "Culture"*2 (mental memes, formal ideas and logical inter-relationships). So, I would re-word your statement to depend on "how one defines 'physical' and 'metaphysical'". Or better, to substitute "natural" and "cultural", to make the complementary relationship more obvious*3. Human culture is a product of natural evolutionary processes, but exists in the form of non-physical ideas (information), and manifests as artificial systems & technologies.
Classical Science, since Descartes, has emphasized the physical (material & mechanical) aspects of reality, and minimized its metaphysical (mental & logical)*4*5 features. Yet, Philosophy originally treated both as valid subjects for study. And since Quantum Science reintroduced the role of the observer into the functions of physics, the human mind can no longer be ignored as a force within Nature. :smile:
*1. Nature : the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.
*2. Culture : the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.
*3. What is the relationship between nature and culture? :
NATURE AND CULTURE converge in many ways that span values, beliefs and norms to practices, livelihoods, knowledge and languages. As a result, there exists a mutual feedback between cultural systems and the environment, with a shift in one often leading to a change in the other.
https://www.resurgence.org/magazine/article2629-nature-and-culture.html
*4. The natureculture divide is the notion of a dichotomy between humans and the environment. Early anthropologists sought theoretical insight from the perceived tensions between nature and culture. ___Wikipedia
*5. Nature and culture are often seen as opposite ideaswhat belongs to nature cannot be the result of human intervention and, on the other hand, cultural development is achieved against nature. However, this is by far not the only take on the relationship between nature and culture.
https://www.thoughtco.com/nature-culture-divide-2670633
Gnomon that's a brilliant question. And yes, I understand, to be quite frank, it's one of the most challenging questions I've been faced with answering. Really difficult to posit an explanation. But not impossible (improbable).
"What influences energy travelling at the speed of light to decelerate? If energy travelling at such a speed cannot interact with itself (for virtue of the fact that two photons having equal and maximal momentum shouldnt be able to influence eachother, as relative to one another they travel at the same speed, with the same power, then how ought they influence one another to decelerate and become matter?")
For information to occur there must be a diaspora between momentums. In essence there must be a" difference" between photons.
So we need an additional principle to engage energy at the speed of light to interact with itself, impart momentum and thus decelerate and provide mass to matter. Right?
This is crucial to understanding how energy and matter can be equivalent (E=mc2).
What principle can we rationalise that purports such an outcome?
For me it's down to something very simple but very powerful. Probability.
Consider energy at the speed of light as "the ability to do work/cause change".
Now consider probability as the likelihood to assume a given state.
If energy is "ability to change" and obeys probability then whenever probability is 1 (absolute/certain) then it must change (to make the probability less than 1 again, as in to maintain probability).
Probability at 1 is not probable, its certain/absolute.
And because energy must be the ability to do work/change it can never be 1 (absolute/certain/unchanging).
Therefore energy at the speed of light (a constant/probability of 1) has no other choice to maintain its quality of change but to decelerate and become matter. (probability less than 1 ie. Subject to changing of states.)
Otherwise energy at the speed of light would not be equivalent to change. Which would mean energy is impotent and cannot do anything but travel at light speed. In which case matter would Never exist.
Hopefully this clarifies why energy must condense into matter. It must/its imperative. For if it wasn't it could only ever be change but not that which is changed. And how can change exist in isolation from the changed?
I don't know where that quote came from, but it reminds me of one situation in which light energy does seem to interact (influence ; interfere) with itself. The quantum double-slit experiment was interpreted as continuous wave-fronts, not particular photons, interacting --- with the result of adding (bright lines ; acceleration?) or subtracting (dark spaces ; deceleration?) energy. In a liquid medium, that result makes sense. But in empty space it's paradoxical. Unless, that is, you take into account the re-vitalized (re-interpreted) Aether theory. Which I am beginning to take seriously.
I read Frank Wilczek's 2008 book about his 21st century Aether theory, for its philosophical implications of course. The science behind this new paradigm is way over my head. But the notion that space-time is a medium (means ; mode ; channel) is compatible with my personal worldview of Enformationism. One form of Generic Information is Energy. And Aether now seems to be equivalent to Potential Energy, whereas Matter is Actualized Energy.
Wilczek has a webpage http://itsfrombits.com that references John A. Wheeler's controversial notion that Matter ("its") derives from Information ("bits"). Those non-physical (subjective) "bits" are potential forms that we can't see or touch until they become physical "its" (things ; objects). Hence, "Abstract Information" is one answer to the OP question : "what exists that is not of the physical world, yet not supernatural". The original meaning of "Aether" was supernatural (divine atmosphere), but the new concept portrays it as a fundamental element of Nature. :smile:
Quotes from Richard Brenner reply on Quora forum thread : Does ether exist?
[i]# " .Today the vacuum is recognized as a rich physical medium .A general theory of the vacuum is thus a theory of everything, a universal theory. It would be appropriate to call the vacuum Ether once again." (S. Saunders and H. R. Brown, The Philosophy of Vacuum)
# .Investigations point towards a compelling idea, that all nature is ultimately controlled by the activities of a single superforce .. thus a living vacuum, the Ether, holds the key to a full understanding of the forces of nature. (Davies P. 'Superforcethe search for a grand unified theory of Nature. Simon and Schuster, New York, 1984)
# .There are good reasons to think that the Universe is a multilayered multicolored superconductor; that all four known forces can be brought together in a unified theory; that seemingly hopelessly different kinds of matter are just different aspects of one all-embracing stuff. I anticipate that the next few years will be a new Golden Age in fundamental physics." (Frank Wilczek, Professor of Physics at MIT, Nobel Prize winner of 2004, author of the book "THE LIGHTNESS OF BEING: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces" (Basic Books; September 2, 2008)
# Robert Laughlin, Nobel prize in physics, gives us the reason why the Ether has been ostracised:
The word ether has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. Let that sink in: a 1998 Nobel Laureate in physics tells us that most physicists think in terms of the Aether about a vacuum .. because to any serious mind throughout history the mere notion of a vacuum is an abomination which has never ever had any kind of explicative nor descriptive power whatsoever, because it is the negation of everything, and cannot therefore be the seat of anything.[/i]
www.quora.com/Does-Aether-exist-according-to-modern-physics
Another Quora reply to the Ether/Or question (pardon the pun) outlines its properties :
Aether has the property of volume, as mentioned, and Aether also has the property of resonance (frequency squared). The resonance of Aether refers to temporal characteristics of the Aether, which are an oscillation between forward and backward time, and also an oscillation between right temporal torque and left temporal torque. The Aether also possesses the property of mass in the same way that the units of potential, resistance, energy, momentum, magnetic flux, and others also possess the dimension of mass. Most importantly, Aether also possesses the property of charge, and there are two distinctly different types of charges; electrostatic charge and magnetic charge. And Aether also has geometry; the geometrical curvature constant of Aether is equal to 16?216?2.
.
I'm sure I've missed that "force". Please cite where in any of the equations or formal models used in QM there is a notation for mind/observer (and not the Hermitian operator for measurenent). You're not talking "over my head" and out of your bunghole again, Gnomon, are you? :sparkle: :eyes:
If we were talking "supernatural magic" in fiction literature, then it could mean something like causing particular extra-self change by will alone, except maybe accompanied by rituals or something.
The Book of the Dead, theurgy, the Key of Solomon, Enochian magic, telepathy, ...? (creative fantasies)
Sort of similarly, I can't get a cab to go visit and shake Superman's hand, "Job well done, sir", but we can chit-chat about it just the same.
Back here in the world we inhabit/share, in what cases can "supernatural magic" not be replaced with "unknown" without incurring informative loss? In what cases have "supernatural magic" as an explanation done away with ignorance/errors? What does "supernatural magic" derive that's differentiable? For that matter, is there anything that "supernatural magic" couldn't be raised to explain? Such cases seem few and far between, if there are any at all.
The verbiage would have to be exemplified and set out to have much meaning, yes?
Quantum entanglement is the cited model you're looking for 180Proof is it not? For one particle to be in one state the other must be in the opposite state to say they are entangled - in communication with one another.
As an observer (in a state of observation) we interact with/are entangled with that which we are observing. There is communication of information between the object of observation and the subject (observer). We must be entangled.
Heinsenbergs uncertainty principle also shows this for to make an exacting observation of one factor the other must be unknown/uncertain. You cannot measure the possible locations of a particle (Velocity) and the where the particle is located at this very moment simultaneously.
And in the same way when we observe something and interpret it as materialistic, we cannot understand it from any other possible explanation. Because some scientists saw lights wave behaviour while others measured it as a particle they were at odds with one another as to which must be correct.
Its like the #the dress thing all-over again.
Nope.
Well then I suppose you already have your answer. Why ask anyone else in the first place ammi right? Haha
Ah, so you don't want to talk to me about it just Gnomon. Is that because you can't talk to me about it or because you don't want to? Do you also fear being exposed as you say Gnomon does? Hmm I do wonder indeed.
In any case I suppose we can leave it there.
Quoting Benj96
Quantum physics has expanded the classical notion of "force" to include a variety of causes of change, including the faster-than-light-causal-force of the Entanglement effect. I could cite many more of them for 180wooboo's enlightenment. But since he missed the point of the quote, I'll merely mention that the cultural "force" I had in mind is human Intention, which has physical effects in Nature. And which I expect he will reject & ridicule. :smile:
Intention is a force :
Consequences are measurable outcomes that are a direct result of our actions. Intentions are the thoughts behind a person's actions. They are the reason that a person chooses to do something. Consequences and intentions both correlate with action.
https://www.123helpme.com/essay/The-Importance-Of-Intention-The-Consequences-Of-769252
Unless of course Gnomon and are in agreement. In which case either of our answers are some variation of eachothers, fundamentally agreeable.
And that's up to him and I to conclude, in which case your interjection would be non sequitur.
Funny how that works.
That's a good attitude to have. I match it in return. I like your confidence. It seems then one must be open to anyone's interjections if you are really saying "bring it if you got it" and not just "Hush up, I'm not talking to you."
That it does Gnomon, that it does. :)
Quoting Banno
:100:
:up:
"MWI" information or reality or ??? :chin:
@Gnomon, @Benj96, @god must be atheist
180wooboo quoted Banno to say that "metaphysics" is included under the heading of Physics. I'm not sure what he meant by that counterintuitive assertion, which ignores the "meta" qualifier. Maybe he's suggesting that Mind (mental properties) is an integral component of Brain (physical properties), hence a category error. Perhaps he's implying that non-material Metaphysics, like everything else in reality, is subordinate to all-encompassing Physics. However, that could be construed to equate metaphysics with Energy & Matter as a third manifestation of Physics*1.
I doubt that 180 actually agrees with even that rephrased equation. Instead, he seems to think that the term "metaphysics" necessarily implies something un-natural & perverse : an abomination. Whenever I use the meta-word (referring to consciousness), he rises-up in righteous indignation to despise, execrate, and condemn the very idea of anything that is not simply matter-energy Physics. As a considered opinion, that's OK with me, except for the dialog-dampening effects of emotional denunciations, and appeals to orthodoxy instead of reason. :smile:
PS__I could agree with a re-worded version of that statement : "Metaphysics is not an afterthought, but an integral feature of NATURE". Since the human Mind -- and its energy analogue Intention -- emerged from the natural processes of evolution, the potential for its emergence must have been encoded in the Natural Laws & Initial Conditions of the physical and metaphysical universe. Otherwise, it would have been a post hoc (supernatural) intervention into the mundane evolutionary mechanisms.
Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Law :
One's view of the natural law is based on one's view of human nature. Human nature is what all humans have in common at all times. The natural law must be universal because human nature is universal. If there is a natural law, it applies to all humans just because they are humans.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-2005.2006.00106.x
Are the laws of nature metaphysical? :
Some philosophers think that laws of nature are contingent, others think that laws are metaphysically necessary.
https://academic.oup.com/pq/article/72/4/875/6454669
Meta-Physical Mind :
The argument against materialism in The Conscious Mind has two parts. The first part, in Chapter 3 of the book, argues that there is no a priori entailment from physical truths to truths about consciousness. The second part, in Chapter 4 of the book, argues that there is no a posteriori necessary entailment from physical truths to truths about consciousness.
http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/images/personal-zenon-pylyshyn/class-info/Consciousness_2014/Chalmers_ConsciousMind/Chalmers_Response1999_OCR.pdf
*1. Ironically, in my personal worldview, I do equate Matter & Mind as emergent forms of universal causal energy (EnFormAction). But Mind & Consciousness have completely different properties from Matter, hence (contra Materialism doctrine) im-material & non-physical attributes.
It is common curtesy in the forum to link when quoting or referring to a contributor.
Sorry. I was replying to 180proof's out of context post, which didn't link to the source of the quote. So, my response was only to what was explicit in his post : metaphysics is integral to physics. :smile:
Which "quote" is that? :roll:
Quoting Gnomon
:lol:
Of course, without any basis to "doubt" as my post history demonstrates).
Your post history reminds me of the bible: the text could be interpreted in any way, of course for different reasons. In your case, (not in the bible's) there is no history of explicit claims or declarations of beliefs, declarations of opinions; but rather symbols such as :razz: :lol: :fire: :100: :sweat: :strong: :cheer: and the like. Other times you underline,bold,italicize and CAPITALIZE or else apply a combination of these features to parts of your text that serves no purpose that I can see. Yes, sometimes you make a declarative statement, and mostly they are in the negative, saying not what your opinion is, but what your opinion is not.
Given the above, you supply (without giving the right or the reason for others to do this) free range in evaluating your stances on issues.
Personally, I have no problem with this, other than considering it spineless. A person who does not make a stand and blames others for misinterpreting his opinion on philosophy sites is certainly a type of person who has all the rights to do this, and can't be dinged for it other than morally.
In summary: your declarations are mostly negations of what others say about you in their opinions of what they ASSUME you say, because you say, basically, nothing, other than binding with other users of the site and other than denying opinions attributed to you.
Carry on, I don't stand in your way, and I don't want to; could not even if I wanted to. I just said what I have observed over a relatively long period of time on this site.
Again, you accuse me without evidence or argument, and when I request for you as I've done here to corroborate your criticisms of me by citing my own words nada, silencio. That Is "Spineless" ... :shade:
As for the preponderance of my negative remarks, first I gotta shovel-out the heaps of fallacious, uninformed, poorly reasoned shit folks like you often post before I can find enough space at the bar to belly-up to and properly trash-talk with reasoned opinions over the din of vapid gossip. Lots of folks, gmba, believe they are saying something more than just making onanistic noises to flatter themselves and their fellow illiteratti. I'm sure you know the type ... So yeah, I cop to it, I'm a dialectical rodeo clown, but only when there's a lot of running bulls*** to corral; like Diogenes with his lantern, I loiter on these fora looking for a few well-informed folks to reason with and learn from inspite of you :eyes:
Anyway, gmba, when you put some thoughtful aporia or speculation on the table that's not buried in a manure heap of incoherence and half-ass pesudo-whatever gossip, I'll be happy to bring my own to the table either to discuss or debate. Until then, I'll pass the time as I see fit as an esteemed philosopher recommends mostly exposing and disabusing know-nothings and think-me-nots out of their smugness.
[quote=Gilles Deleuze]The use of philosophy is to sadden. A philosophy which saddens no one, that annoys no one, is not a philosophy. It is useful for harming stupidity, for turning stupidity into something shameful. Its only use is the exposure of all forms of baseness of thought.[/quote]